Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1887-10-21
LEGAL NEW 5.
NOTES.

Matthew J. Brown has been returned t.
Court for A&B with intent 10 kiil. on oath "i
8. t. Bell. Mr.. Plummer Bell, the man who
was hurt has regained consciousness anu Is
reported 10 be recovering.
Sarah j. :. Amanda, and Naney Kerr have
been returned for A&B on oath of Joseph
Kerr
B .nony Patriige has sued flor div rec from
Frances Delight Partridge.
Hannah Crawford bad summons in eject
Inent is ,ued VS. Chas. Herr, VIM. Burns. E.
P. Chesebro, w. VI. Altman, and AZ others
for ell that tract of land in Fairview twp,
and Petroiia boro., bounded on the north by
lands of VIM. Gibson and A. L. Campbell,
On the east by John B. Jamison and Joseph
McElvray, on the south bY j. 3. Jamlson
and Hazzlewood Oil Co., and on the west by
lands of Wm. Wilson.
Twenty six members of the bar have enter
ed into an agreement regarding procedure
under act of May %, 1887.
Letters of administration were granted to
A. Roessing on estate OF Julia Roessing, Decd
The viewers to assess the damage done to
the old B. Eoessing property Zoe .asiored by
the grading of Washington ST., reported that
ro damage had been done.
d.. .Hindman and lJos. c. Dewey had
heari before Esq. Walker, Tuesday, on a
charge of furnishing liquor TO man of
known incorporate habits, preferred By
John Lewis, and were held for Court.
The General Iudices to toe Orphans Court
Dockets have arrived.
PROPERTY TRANSFERS.
John f. Moore has decided a lot in Butler to
Adam Miller for 500.
Emma Schroth decided property In Saxon
burg TO Sophia Pfeii for 500.
Elois Beck decided property in Butler to
Mrs. E. K Colbert for 1890.
Margaret Snyder decided A acres in Mid
dlesex twp, TO VIM. Snyder.
Lewis Lenkner decided a lot in Saxonbu. G
to George Lenkner for 800.
c. W. Chrisiy to Jos. Carnahan acres in
Brady for sly.
L. Hammond to Mary A. Daweil property
in Batter for $500.
Geo. Flinner Is acres in Lancaster to Benj
F. Struck for $500.
SUPREME COURT.
Quite number of our attorneys are attend
ing Supreme Court in Pittsburg this week.
Ten cases went up from this county as TO-
lows:
BickeI & Beihl vs. Batter borough.
Eshenoaagh vs. Briekcr.
McCandless VS. Mccall.
McClafieriy IS Berg.
Byers VS.. Summit township.
SeatOn vs Smith.
Kelly vs. Duffy.
Critchlog vs. Critchlow.
Moreland vs. Dougherty.
The case OF Donegal twp, this county, VS.
the adjoining twp. OF Sugarcreek IN Arm-
strong county was taken up from Armstrong
county and argued last week.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court listened o
IL 8 ttanfl r4
Butler VS. Bckel & Biehl. The facts Of the
case are well known here. the defendants OBJ
tanned verdict Of $500 damages and the
Council appealed.
The case OF 4. A. Eshenbaugh VS.. Perry
Bricker was also argued Tuesday. Miss f..
obtained verdict against Perry of $1,000 for
breach of promise, Perry wants to take ad-
vantage Of the insolvency laws, and this Miss
+ objects 10.
Among the cases argued ia the Supreme
Court last Monday was one that was some
what peculiar. In May, 1885, I. K. Mccall,
a tipstave in the Court Of Butler county, de-
sired to borrow 500 from i. j. McCandless.
John Grossman agreed to become his security
provided Geo. X. Baker would also 81 IN the
note. With this agreement Grossman signed
the note and Mccall forged the name Of
Baker to it and presented it TO McCandlcss
securing the money. Shortly after Mccall
committed suicide and Judgment on the note
was sued for by McCandless and obtained
Grossman then appealed from the decision Of
the lower court.
The Supreme Court at PittsbErg last week
decided a case that may interest good many
people beside the parties to the suit from
which it arose. A Harrisburg furniture
dealer sold goods to married woman, not
withstandiDg the husband had notified him
orally and by letter not ~ do so on his credit
The furniture man brought suit against the
husband and the jury found a verdict in his
favor; that the husband tad ratified the
wife's purchases by permitting them TO re-
main in his household aud using them. The
Supreme Court decides this is an error, that
there was no ratification on the part Of the
husband in permitting the goods to remain
in the house, and that it was not his duty TO
remove the goods notify the dealer 10
take them away. Ifthe latter chose TO take
his chance Of recovery after notice not to sell
he had that right, but he could not improve
il into right Of action against the husband.